Tag Archives: Climate Change

For some time we have followed a group known as Positive Money UK on Twitter. They seem to be among the few people/groups that have a decent comprehension of the flaws in what we call the insane debt based monetary system in which the inhabitants of the earth are either coerced or compelled to live by. They describe themselves as “a movement to democratise money and banking so it works for society and not against it.”

We were reminded of this by one of their tweets today:

The alien meme sums up what we have been driving at for some time now here at The Mint. We tend to focus on the acceleration of the damage that humankind causes to nature as the nasty side effect of using debt as money, but it is well noted in other corners that indeed, many of the distortions in relationships between persons and nations have the concept of extinguishing debt as their root.

The video which is linked to in the above Tweet from Positive Money UK is presented as a public service below, it does a nice job of showing how the only way to create money in our insane, debt based monetary system, is to go deeper into debt or have someone else go into debt.

While the video is spot on in terms of money creation, they present only half of the solution (which we find is common in many monetary reform circles, namely Bitcoin). The second half that is too often ignored is that 1) money, as a concept, necessarily will take on many forms in the world and 2) whatever is used as money by a majority will necessarily require an associated debt market to successfully operate for any length of time (the lack of a viable debt market is killing Bitcoin). This is the great supposed advantage of using debt in the form of Central Bank notes as money, infinite debt markets = infinite liquidity, meaning there is always money available. It is this advantage that any viable monetary reform must include, or else it is doomed from the start.

On their website, Positive Money UK points out that “Only 1 in 10 MPs understand that 97% of money is created by banks.” As the English are generally cleverer than Americans, we would imagine the ratio in the governing bodies on the US side of the pond to be even lower. If you need proof of this, just watch the next Senate Banking Committee session on C-Span.

Nobody seems to get that today, circa 2014, money and debt are the SAME THING. What passes as money today are nothing more than liabilities of Central Banks. This is a worldwide phenomenon, and the effects are profound.

Money is a concept that attaches itself to certain real world things in various forms. Credit is another concept which attaches itself to various agreements. They are the antithesis of each other. Most people generally understand this and spend a good deal of their time working or causing others to work in order to attain a reasonable balance between the two on their ledgers, regardless of the size.

However, as the above video partially illustrates, most people are wrong, the only way to “make money” is to “make debt.” This is causing SEVERE imbalances in the natural world as the activities of mankind continue with an unconscious disregard for the effects of the real world.

The effects on the real world are this: There is an inordinate amount of fallow land left unattended while an increasing share of mankind passes time in urban settings, with their own productive capacity squarely aligned, day in, day out, in conflict with the needs of the natural world.

The irony is that many have taken note of the dire state of affairs of nature (read Climate Change, etc.) and then misdiagnose the cause. They clamor for more “money” to solve problems that have come about as an indirect result of the creation of more “money.”

Humankind was never meant to live under that shadow of such an overabundance of credit. The removal of limits on credit creation has effectively removed the natural governor of the activities of man, the need to create real, free market money, making certain that debts are settled in terms of real goods which are demanded by a free market economy. The return to this natural governor on human activity is indispensable if humankind is to even begin to address climate change and world peace.

The return to this natural governor will be painful, but it is inevitable, and the more one can prepare now to operate in a world where money and credit operate in their appropriate the capacities and take their appropriate places in a balanced economy, the better.

The world is headed, kicking and screaming, towards a forced monetary reset, and things will be much different than they are now.

We applaud the efforts of Positive Money UK, for they are on the right track. You too can follow them on Twitter or YouTube and learn more about this fascinating and important subject that, by our own reckoning, only one in a million comprehend. Will that one be you?

The virtual currency known as the Bitcoin has achieved what has become a badge of honor in the finance industry, it has become the subject of a Senate hearing.

Senate hearings have, in the past, starred noble characters such as MF Global and its lead actor, John Corzine, who still roams free after punting roughly $1.6 Billion USD to another Wall Street leading man, Jamie Dimon, who remains the head of JP Morgan, who added a $13 Billion fine to its list of greatest hits related to its dealings with other entities during what has become known as the Financial Crisis of 2008.

And who can forget the Gorilla, Lehman’s Richard Fuld, who starred in one of the earliest versions of such hearings and gave us the phrase, echoed by insolvent bankers throughout the world, “why us?”

As the Bitcoin has no central authority to speak of, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs called Jennifer Calvary, head of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Edward Lowery of the Secret Service, and Mythili Raman of the Justice Department to testify on its behalf.

As may be expected by three persons who are cast in the role of antagonist to anything offering anonymity to private citizens, a privilege that the government refuses to recognizes, they expressed concern about “what could happen” and “who may be using” virtual currencies such as Bitcoin.

However, the antagonists did show a measure of empathy for their crypto-foe, the same way viewers feel empathy for characters like John Q or Walter White. While taking the government line that what people may do with Bitcoins may be bad, the Bitcoins themselves are generally harmless and, in fact, may provide a great benefit to society.

As pageantry that generally accompanies a finance related Senate hearing unfolded, the Bitcoin market went ballistic, touching $900USD before the elevator moves inherent in the Bitcoin/USD (or any other debt based currency) market took hold and thrust it back to $600, it is now climbing past $700 as we write.

While it is interesting for Senators to listen to how various branches of government propose to regulate Bitcoins, it is clear that, while they may have a glimmer of a chance of understanding the technological framework of Bitcoins, they have no clue what it means in the monetary realm, for they do not understand money.

Alas, much of humanity is in the dark as to monetary theory. It is for this reason that we started The Mint, to explore this deep “mystery” that lies in the wallet of each and every one of us.

To be sure, Bitcoins have an Achilles heel, but it is not what many people think, want to know what it is and when to get out of Bitcoins? Someday we will give them away, for now, it will cost you $0.99 USD, or 0.00141 BTC to find out. Please pick up our hastily written guide to Bitcoins, which, to our knowledge, is the only one that has examined Bitcoins through the lens of monetary theory with clarity and coherence.

All we can say for the moment is that Bitcoin is a buy, you can sort out the details later.

As for the government’s concerns regarding Bitcoin’s inherent anonymity in the monetary realm, we propose the following Quid pro quo. Rather than the public being obligated to respond to the straw man argument of “If you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about?” what if the public’s retort to the government became a universal, “if you have nothing to fear, what are you worried about?”

What kind of book is this? It is largely up to the reader to decide. For us, it is the fruit of two years of wrestling with some of life’s deeper questions with regards to Economics, Politics, and Philosophy. It has answered many of them and, in turn, has raised other issues, for in our exploration, as you will see, the current state of affairs is laid bare for all to examine, and our recommended courses of action may be unpalatable for many.

Nevertheless, there it is, altogether thick and challenging, yet refreshingly simple, the key to reversing the effects of climate change.

In a sense, it culminates the first phase of what we set out to do here at The Mint. There will be more to come, but for the time being, we leave you to ponder the following brief excerpt:

“The natural world strives daily to achieve a perfect state of balance. Events and occurrences that, taken by themselves, appear chaotic and devoid of meaning are together part of a constant rebalancing of the earth’s delicate state. Each event is a splash of color across an oppressive gray sky that hints at a rainbow that will soon appear. “

We would be remiss here at The Mint if we did not enquire and make an honest attempt to understand the phenomenon of bitcoins. Bitcoins, according to wikipedia, are units of a peer-to-peer digital currency. They are a purely digital attempt to solve the eternal problem of what to use as money. Are they to be trusted? Lets take a look.

First, we must look at them from a purely conceptual standpoint. Are they money? Yes, bitcoins, as we understand their operation, meet our pure definition of money in the sense that they are not debt.

However, they have a rather severe limitation in that universal or even regional recognition as money in exchange and convertibility to other forms of money could prove elusive. This is a psychological barrier that theoretically could be overcome, however, it is difficult to assume that a majority of persons would, in time, learn what a bitcoin is and then take the time to sign up for and monitor a bitcoin account.

The market penetration for bitcoins could be as large as the number of internet and mobile phone users in the world but would more likely be similar to that of banking customers who use online and mobile banking services. In other words, those who are comfortable storing a portion of their wealth in a digital media.

Given the barriers to recognition and acceptance, at this point, bitcoins are probably best thought of as a share of stock in an amorphous payment clearing mechanism whose business model consists of the free exchange of its own shares of stock between account holders and the constant validation of transactions and subsequent logging of ownership of said shares.

These shares, then, would need to be converted into a local currency to be of use outside of the realm of bitcoin account holders.

The validation of the exchange and the logging of ownership of the bitcoins must be done by someone for the bitcoins to maintain their integrity and therefore any value which others may attach to them apart from a fickle monetary premium which is, at present, compromised by the barriers of recognition and convertibility refered to above.

This validation is currently undertaken voluntarily by the bitcoin account owners themselves and is accomplished by the users offering their resources, in the form of computer processing power and the use of computer hardware and electricity which makes the processing possible, to the greater bitcoin network for this purpose.

In return for the computer processing power and use of hardware and electricity which they dedicate to these processes, the bitcoin account owner receives a quantity of newly created bitcoins in exchange for the completion of a set quantity of computing (read bookkeeping and auditing functions) completed. These newly issued bitcoins serve to dilute the overall stock of the existing bitcoins.

The process of bitcoin creation realized through computer processing is refered to as “mining,” a name which is a fairly accurate description of the way in which bitcoins come into creation, even though the process more resembles accounting than strip mining.

As of this writing, we understand that mining bitcoins on a small scale is not profitable, which in layman’s terms means that the cost of the electricity needed to perform the computer processing involved in mining is greater than the amount of bitcoins which would come into existence as a result of the computer processing performed.

This calculation is naturally expressed in dollars as we are not yet aware of a utility company which accepts bitcoins as payment for electric bills.

It would then follow that bitcoin creation would slow as long as this price relationship exists. We will ignore, for the sake of simplicity, the fact that a great deal of bitcoin “mining” is done via bots which use the electricity and computer processing capacity of unwitting hosts, which makes mining profitable for some at the expense of others, and simply state that bitcoin creation, on net, is currently a losing proposition.

The fact that the mining of bitcoins is not profitable should make the existing bitcoins more valuable in the future as the stock of bitcoins will either cease to be diluted will be diluted at a lower rate. This would theoretically cause the value of bitcoins to increase until it again became profitable to “mine” them, which in turn would lead to an increased rate of dilution of the bitcoin stock and lower relative value in exchange, etc.

In this sense, the economics of bitcoins is similar to that of mining precious metals. Another similarity that the bitcoin has to precious metals is that theoretically there is a logarithm which ultimately will place an absolute limit on the number of bitcoins in existence. The logarithm places a mathematical limit to the stock of bitcoins in the same way that nature places a theoretical limit on the extractable amounts of precious metals which can be used as money.

However, bitcoins have a distinct disadvantage to precious metals owed to the fact that bitcoins require constant bookkeeping and auditing to maintain the integrity and therefore value of the bitcoin as money. Precious metals, on the other hand, do not rely upon administrative functions to maintain their value and rely entirely upon their relative value in trade.

Further, we must assume that the bookkeeping and auditing needed to maintain the integrity of the bitcoin will increase exponentially as bitcoin production approaches its logarithmically imposed limit, just as the incentive to perform these functions (mining, as it were) continues to diminish.

Given this inevitable dynamic, it is unclear if the integrity of the system can be maintained once the incentive to maintain the integrity of the system, which is currently supplied by the ability to “mine” bitcoins, is removed.

Having said all of that, it is now time to point out the obvious flaw in the bitcoin model, the flaw which lands bitcoins squarely in the realm of equity and makes them unfit for long-term use as money: The threat of competing digital currencies which would surely come into existence if the bitcoin were to gain widespread popularity and acceptance.

Even with the digital checks and balances on production which are mathematically built into the bitcoin model, the bitcoin, like gold, silver, seashells, and fiat currency, fails to completely solve the happy problem which has no solution:

That the infinite increases in trade due to the increased division of labor in the world will require money and debt markets with the flexibility and dynamism that only a completely free money supply can offer.

Gold and silver may hit physical limits, bitcoins may be limited by logarithms, and debt based fiat currencies tend to collapse upon themselves. This is proof that none of them, by virtue of physical and psychological limitations, completely fulfill the role of money for man. They were never meant to.

The determination of what will serve as money must be left in the hands of the people who are involved in trade. Left to their own devices, we would be amazed at the speed and efficiency with which the problem of what is money can be solved.

In other words, let those engaged in trade decide what is most suited as money at a given time and allow them to trade with it without hindrance.

For it is not the costs associated in the production of a monetary unit which remove value from the economy, rather, the administrative burdens, unnecessary conversion costs, and the rigidity of an imposed monetary unit which deals mortal blows to trade and consequently the ability of all humans to flourish to the greatest of their abilities.

Unnatural restrictions on the money supply, which solutions like bitcoin attempt to solve, are devastating to trade. The destruction wrought by monetary hegemony should surpass hunger, poverty, and climate change as global concerns, for allowing a free money supply to operate would serve to eradicate all of these problems and their symptoms, namely social unrest, terrorism, and health care crises.

As the western world braces for a full scale currency collapse, we have endeavored here at The Mint to offer an explanation as to why these events are taking place and, along the way, offering the obvious solution to the chief problem, mistaking credit for money.

For those of you who have missed Part I, Part II, Part II, and/or Part IV, you may read them by clicking on the following links:

If you require only a brief summary, Part IV above offers a relatively brief and comprehensive summary of the previous three. Now where were we…

Ah yes, in the United States, circa 1968, a time not so unlike our own. The Vietnam war was becoming increasingly unpopular and the social climate was ripe for protest. The US had run up a large and increasing trade deficit with the rest of the world. It was becoming clear that if foreign dollar holders were to redeem a significant amount of their Federal Reserve Notes, which we now understand to be banknotes and not money proper, for gold, which we now understand to be money proper, the Federal Reserve would not be able to deliver enough gold.

The solution, if it can be called that, was to gradually increase the amount of Federal Reserve Notes required to obtain an ounce of gold from $35 to $41 between 1968 and 1971. Then, in 1971, with the US dollar collapsing in value and the Bretton Woods system falling apart at the seams, then President of the United States Richard Nixon announced that US dollars were no longer convertible into gold. The event is now referred to as the Nixon Shock.

And a shock it was. The US dollar, the benchmark of Central Bank currencies throughout the world, was now officially backed only by the faith that it would continue to be accepted in trade. The Federal Reserve had defaulted.

Most of the world still lives by this faith today, and if anything, the delusion that a banknote issued by a Central Bank which has defaulted on its obligation to deliver real money on demand has only grown.

The reason that the large scale catastrophe of modern Central Banking lies before us is that over the last 40 years, the lack of gold and silver to back the banknotes in circulation has been replaced by the expectation that governments, and by extension their subjects (citizens), will produce enough goods and perform enough services to repay the obligations represented by the banknotes. As the unrestricted quantity of banknotes and obligations to deliver banknotes in existence will always tend to exceed the stock of available goods and services, these obligations are impossible to satisfy.

Human beings are fallible. It is normal and should be expected that they will not be able to deliver on certain obligations. The natural beauty of banknotes redeemable in gold and silver was that, if it was suspected or observed that a person or entity would be unable to pay their obligations, the creditor would move to seize the gold, silver, or other assets that the debtor had pledged as collateral.

The seizure of collateral or the threat of seizure was often enough to correct the failed human action or decisions that were leading to the net loss of wealth incurred by the activity which was undertaken. In economic parlance, we would call this the correction of the malinvestment of resources.

Without gold and silver to act as a natural limitation on the supply of banknotes and other forms of credit, the bad decisions that lead to the malinvestment and the activities that lead to the destruction of wealth and resources can continue for a very long time.

The use of gold and silver as money had another, more important function that is often overlooked. Gold and silver are inert, non-consumable objects. Their hoarding and use as money will not generally cause starvation or want. In fact, the hoarding of gold and silver as money would have the effect of lowering general prices as productivity increased, naturally creating an incentive to decrease production which in turn would raise prices, making the expenditure of more silver and gold necessary and in turn raise prices, creating a natural incentive to produce.

Gold and silver allow the economy to naturally regulate itself and, by virtue of the difficulty in extracting them, cause the rest of the earth’s resources to be used in harmony with each other.

Finally, gold and silver are inanimate objects. Their recognition and possible seizure as collateral does not threaten the liberty or life of a person. However, because modern central banking has replaced money proper and placed credit in its place, it will become increasingly common to entire societies held as security for a debt that many of them had no direct hand in creating. This is the logical end of using credit as money.

It is the truth that will bring tragedy to the earth.

Without the natural counterbalance to trade and growth which gold and silver money had provided for over 9,000 years, man’s activities, whether productive or destructive, have continued nearly unchecked for the past 40 years. It is staggering to think of the catastrophe that awaits if man is truly on the path to destruction.

Man, by nature, is always on the path of destruction, but the use of gold and silver as money served to correct him before he strayed too far down it.

Most people alive today have been trained to believe that using Gold and Silver as money is an unnecessary and environmentally harmful process. Even Adam Smith believed that if the effort expended to mine metals to create money could be directed to other, more useful activities, that humanity would be better off.

What Smith did not realize was that man would not always direct its energies to useful activities. Like modern Socialists, he underestimated the power of self interest inherent in all human action. Today we are preparing to reap the consequences of 40 years of unrestricted and more often misguided human actions.

While it may be too late to avoid the catastrophe that Modern Central Banking may bring upon us, it is comforting to know that a return to the understanding and use of gold and silver as money offers hope for a future of truly infinite possibilities.

Fresh injections of electronically printed cash from the US and Euro FEDs appear to have tranquilized a market in free fall. That, along with a ban on short selling in Europe seems to be sufficient to continue the illusion that the financial system is operating normally.

The ban of short selling in Europe is eerily similar to the ban placed on short selling large bank stocks in the US not so long ago. The increase in the Gold margin requirement is eerily similar to the increase in Silver margin requirements by the CME last spring.

What is going on? Nothing good, fellow taxpayers. A tip, if you see the Government actively trying to stop something, it is good idea to be on the other side of the government’s trade. In this case, sell European bank shares and buy gold. Think of it as an indirect governmental subsidy to little old you.

The markets are desperately trying to correct nearly 40 years of errors that have been created since the US Dollar was officially de-pegged from gold. The FED’s, who see currency that can be created on a whim without the inconvenience of having to either mine it from the earth or earn it in honest, fair trade as extremely convenient , are desperately trying to fight the correction.

If the numbers just look normal, they think, people will continue to pacifically labor under the illusion that the Government has everything under control.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

It occurred to us that we may need to clarify what the money problem is and why it, and not fossil fuels, are the cause of economic imbalance and may lead to what is popularly referred to as climate change.

Many deride the use of gold and silver as money because it must be mined from the ground, refined, minted, carried around, kept secure, etc. It is inconvenient. They see money created out of thin air as a simple net gain to society.

Presto, you have, with a stroke of the pen, saved the miners from years of hard labor underground. You have saved who knows how many trees, fossil fuels, and other elements required for the refining process. And you have saved Jack and Jill consumer and shopkeeper from the inconvenience of carting around loads of heavy coins.

So what is the matter with instant money? The problem, if you have not identified it, is precisely in the fact that it is easy to create. When you remove the effort required to create money for trade, you free that effort to be spent in a lot of other ways. That is great, except for the fact that no one considers that instant money would give people the time to scorch the earth in a thousand other ways which are much more harmful than mining.

By making money “free”, you throw the economy completely out of balance and perpetuate bad decisions for a much longer time than if the wrong speculations were limited by the need to back them with real money, acquired by difficult toil both under and above the earth.

The problem with “free” money is that it has no value, and it serves to devalue the production and lives of all who are forced to circulate it. The longer it circulates, the more damage it does.

Worst of all, it concentrates power in the hands of those who create it out of thin air and enjoy it first.

The world has gone 40 years down this insane path. How much more can it take?

Gold hit $1,800 today. That should tell you all you need to know about what is happening.

We are trying not to look at the markets today. It gives us the morbid feeling that one gets as they are about to witness a train wreck or other catastrophe. Our curiosity begs us to look but our morality forbids it.

“Rochdale banking analyst Richard Bove said there is little chance of a French bank default.

“If a bank in Europe went under, it would cause huge counterparty risk. It wouldn’t be that bad for 99 percent of the banks in the country. It would be bad for the biggest banks…Why are all the banks falling in price? The deeper issue is what the Federal Reserve did yesterday,” said Bove.

“The Federal Reserve told me, number one, that the economy is weakening and my loan losses just went up,” Bove said. “The ability to make new loans is hampered by the weaker economy, and on top of that, the Federal Reserve said they were going to keep margins on my product down,” he said, explaining banks need higher rates to make profits on lending and deposits.”

As we alluded to yesterday, the Federal Reserve essentially ended its storied career yesterday. In an all out attempt to goose the markets it spent its last bit of credibility. It is currently being carted off the field to cheer its losing team from the sidelines. It may come back, but, like Brett Farve, it may find its former glory elusive.

With the FED injured and out of the game, the world’s largest banks are readying to show the world that there really is no entity on the planet which is “too big to fail,” starting with themselves. There is no doubt that the ECB will pull out all the stops to save the large French banks, as Mr. Bove suggests above.

They will be carted off behind the FED. But enough of the markets, it is just too ugly to gaze upon.

Let’s talk about the weather!

It is an unusually cold “summer” day here in Portland. We loosely use the term summer because it now seems that summer has taken its own vacation and left the inhabitants of the Northwest with a straight shot from Spring to Fall. Not so bad, provided we get the best of both seasons.

Still, the lack of sunshine at this time of year seems to be taking its toll on people. When the sun comes out here, you suddenly become aware that the city has about triple the number of inhabitants than you once thought. People literally hibernate here and when the sun brings them out it can be startling if you are not expecting it.

Logic would follow that, with the recent weather data taking a turn for the cooler, the global warming crowd would declare victory and let the planet move on to bigger and better things. Now that the myth of global warming is apparently being disproved by nature herself, scientists are clinging onto the term “climate change” to justify the right to determine who needs how much energy. The right to energy in recent times was determined by wars so perhaps this is an improvement.

Many will quickly note that we have certain facts wrong about global warming/climate change and will want to correct us in our error. To them we say, please do not waste your time. We do not pretend to be an expert at anything here at The Mint, we are merely opinionated. The most normal thing is for us to be wrong, it helps keep us humble.

Flooding on the Missouri River at Omaha, Nebraska - July 2011

That said, we base our “the globe is now cooling” opinion on two anecdotes that we heard while in Nebraska recently. First, Lake McConaughy, which just five years ago was nearly bone dry is now full to overflowing. The “experts” said that it would take 50 years to reach normal levels.

Second, we spoke with a guy from northern Wyoming who said they are seeing new GLACIATION taking place right before their eyes. In a valley where last season there was merely a stream coming down from the mountains now stands a new glacier over 50 feet high. Not just snowpack, a glacier. He could not recall this ever happening there before. Let alone so quickly.

Then there are the bears. Rumor has it that they are moving to lower altitudes in the Northwestern US because snowpack in the mountains is not receding as it normally did and this is driving the bears closer to populated areas in search of a feast to fill their bellies for the winter.

More Flooding near airport on the Missouri River at Omaha, Nebraska - July 2011

And finally, everyone is aware of the flooding taking place along the Missouri and Mississippi rivers this season.

To us, here in the Northern Hemisphere, it appears that the globe is now cooling at an alarming rate. Is the solution now to burn more fossil fuels?

Our point is that the weather is something that no man, no matter how many terms he has spent in Congress, can control. Those who believe that mankind can somehow master the weather (the logical implication and end of most policies invoked in the name of stopping “climate change”) are innocently deluded at best and in the worst case may be power hungry control freaks.

As for allowing Wall Street first dibs at selling us the air we breathe (cleverly disguised as “carbon credits”), any thinking person should quickly identify this notion as just plain insanity.

On the other hand, we have great respect for people who are deeply committed to taking care of the environment. We wish them well and whole heartedly support their dream of bringing peace to the earth and balance to what occurs on it.

Our disagreement with most mainstream climate policy is a question of methods. While most see a problem with what mankind currently uses to create energy, we see as a problem with what mankind has chosen to use as money.

Once the monetary system is fixed (which may be occurring shortly), we suspect that the earth will be cleaner and greener than even the most ambitious environmentalist has ever imagined.

Best of all, the change will be a product of mankind’s collective free will, not of the hollow decrees of a governmental edict.

Leon Bridges brought a smooth groove to his performance of “If It Feels Good (Then It Must Be)” on “The Late Late Show with James Corden” last night (March 19). Bridges served up a sweet mix of neo-soul and R & B in his upbeat performance of the track, which hails from his 2018 album […]

At the tender age of seven-years-old, Maggie Rogers began playing the harp and found musical inspiration in famed composers of yesteryear. By the time Rogers was in middle school she had begun curating her own original songs and also added guitar and piano to the list of instruments she was able to...

Jennifer Lopez is collaborating with Cardi B, but not on a new single; the two are making a movie together. The duo is starring in the upcoming film "Hustlers," which will start shooting on March 22, according to Deadline Hollywood. Inspired by a New York Magazine article, "Hustlers" is a female-led...

Brittany Frederick

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy